Skip to content

Proposal: Add url deeplink template to booking_rules for creating deeplinks to DRT services #624

Description

@matt-wirtz

Describe the problem

Many journey planning apps integrate DRT services in their planning so that DRT trip options show up in the journey planning results besides fixed route services. Quite often a link is offered based on the booking_url from booking_rules.txt that directs the user to the website of the DRT service. The user could then book the service he is interested in.

To make it more convenient for the user most DRT booking systems offer the usage of url parameters. Then it's possible to pass along basic infos regarding the desired DRT trip like starting point and time. The booking webseite can then already take the user to an offer for his trip request. No need to type in again start point, time etc.

Unfortunately each DRT booking system has defined it's own set of url parameters. To avoid that journey planning apps need to know which set of url parameters each DRT booking system supports, it might be a better solution to include an uri deeplink template in the GTFS data as e.g. deeplink_url_template.

Use cases

Make it possible for journey planning apps to generate deeplinks for DRT trips based on an uri template provided with the GTFS data.

Proposed solution

  • Add an uri deeplink template in booking_rules.txt as e.g. deeplink_url_template
  • The template describes which url parameters are supported
  • The template is provided by the DRT system within the GTFS data.
  • Journey planning services can then dynamically generate deeplinks for any DRT service.

Additional information

One issue might be that the url parameter names (key words), that might be used in the template, need to be a fixed set. Otherwise the journey planning service would not know how to process the template. Additions are only possible by changing the GTFS specification.

Before I investigate more time here, I'd like to hear some of your opinions regarding this topic. Maybe others have stumbled over this topic already.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Change type: FunctionalRefers to modifications that significantly affect specification functionalities.GTFS ScheduleIssues and Pull Requests that focus on GTFS Schedule

    Type

    No type

    Fields

    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions